Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-01-13-Speech-1-226-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20140113.24.1-226-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, employee financial participation in companies’ proceeds (EFP) is a concrete way for companies to share success.
The report makes a number of recommendations to overcome these obstacles and increase the number of EFP schemes operated in the Union. For example, best practices and examples of EFP schemes and incentive measures should be shared among Member States and interested bodies. This could lead to mutual recognition of the schemes, which could simplify the process for cross-border companies.
The report makes reference to the current pilot project and to the benefits that a virtual EFP centre and the tax-rate calculator could bring in terms of augmenting available information. These propositions would be of particular use to companies operating cross-border.
We also call for the Commission to carry out an impact assessment on a possible ‘29th regime’, alongside Member States’ national regimes. This regime should operate outside the areas of national competence, such as taxation, should be voluntary and should be based on a set of best-practice examples for each type and size of company.
In addition, we recommend that a set of basic guidelines for successful EFP schemes be developed. Firstly, the decision to implement a scheme should be taken at company level. Participation should be in addition to remuneration and employment rights; it should be voluntary, and employees should be provided with all the relevant information in order to make an informed decision. Lastly, if the model involves shares, collective ownership is a positive option.
Finally the report proposes the creation of a single information portal setting out the advantages, disadvantages, potential incentives and mechanisms of EFP schemes.
I hope these recommendations will be taken forward by the Commission and interested organisations.
It is a long-supported liberal vision, set out by Joe Grimmond in the 1960s and taken forward by many successful companies, such as John Lewis in the United Kingdom. It is a practical example of the inclusive growth referred to in the Europe 2020 strategy, and it can empower citizens through employment by allowing them to play an integral role in the company for which they work.
Across the EU there are many different EFP models, but the main ones are profit-sharing, individual employee share ownerships and employee stock ownership plans. The category or model chosen will often depend on the type and size of the company as well as the aims of starting such a scheme.
The concept of employee financial participation offers many advantages. It can assist in the transfer of a company to employees when a single successor cannot be found: this is particularly useful in the case of SMEs and micro-enterprises. It promotes sustainability and long-termism in decision-making, which can benefit both employees and employers. For employees, it can enhance their commitment to the future success of the company and can give them an opportunity to participate in governance. For employers, it can encourage investment in training by increasing the company’s ability to retain skilled workers in the long term. There can also be improvements in employee job satisfaction and motivation, which can in turn boost productivity. Despite these benefits, participation in EFP schemes varies between different sectors, company sizes and Member States and also according to employee demographics.
Europe lags behind other regions of the world, particularly the United States, in this field. In the report I have looked at the reasons for this and at the potential obstacles to EFP take-up in the Union.
Firstly, there is a lack of information about how EFP schemes operate and can be implemented. Answering these questions can be costly and burdensome for companies, in particular SMEs and micro-enterprises.
Secondly, there is a lack of national legislative incentive measures in some Member States.
Thirdly, EFP schemes are affected by national taxation regimes. The taxation elements of this report were, of course, supplied by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, not by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
Lastly, companies which operate cross-border are faced with a multitude of EFP schemes and national legislative provisions."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples